Association Between Citations, Altmetrics, and Article Views in Pediatric Research

The evolving landscape of publishing in the field of pain: An automated bibliometric analysis from 1975 to 2020

BACKGROUND

The aims of this bibliometric analysis were (1) a longitudinal analysis of the publication landscape in the field of pain (1975-2020) and (2) to characterize the overall publication profiles for two selected journals: European Journal of Pain and PAIN® utilizing an automated approach.

METHODS

Database searches in Scopus extracted all journals with 'pain' in their title. For the two specific journals, papers were manually/automatically profiled into preclinical, human and translational studies.

RESULTS

A gross list of 64 journals in the field of pain consisting of both active and ceased journals in Scopus were included in this analysis which identified 62,565 papers with approximately 4000 papers published/year. These papers include 2759 and 9156 papers in Eur. J. Pain and PAIN®, respectively. Currently, there are 24 active 'pain' journals. Authors/paper increase from 2 to 7 indicating a development from mono-disciplinary to multi-disciplinary studies. The overall publication profiles assessing preclinical, human (experimental/clinical) and translational papers in Eur. J. Pain and PAIN® were almost similar (14%, 75% and 10% versus 26%, 63% and 10%). Papers have changed over the years from mono-disciplinary studies (e.g. behavioural studies) to multi-disciplinary studies (e.g. combined behavioural and cell studies). After optimization, the search model matched the manual screening by 100%, 98% and 96% for the preclinical, clinical and healthy volunteer categories.

CONCLUSIONS

Over the last 45 years, more than 60,000 pain-related papers have been published. Papers develop over the years from mono-disciplinary to multi-disciplinary studies. The overall publication profile including preclinical, human (experimental/clinical) and translational papers was almost similar in Eur. J. Pain and PAIN®.

SIGNIFICANCE

The bibliometric analysis of a pain journal provides information on which specific areas of research are published, how this may have changed over the years and how a journal is positioned compared with other journals in the field.

Evaluating the impact of a CTSA program from 2008 to 2021 through bibliometrics, social network analysis, and altmetrics

Introduction

We evaluate a CTSA program hub by applying bibliometrics, social network analysis (SNA), and altmetrics and examine the changes in research productivity, citation impact, research collaboration, and CTSA-supported research topics since our pilot study in 2017.

Methods

The sampled data included North Carolina Translational and Clinical Science Institute (NC TraCS)-supported publications produced between September 2008 and March 2021. We applied measures and metrics from bibliometrics, SNA, and altmetrics to the dataset. In addition, we analyzed research topics and correlations between different metrics.

Results

1154 NC TraCS-supported publications generated over 53,560 citation counts by April 2021. The average cites per year and the relative citation ratio (RCR) mean of these publications improved from 33 and 2.26 in 2017 to 48 and 2.58 in 2021. The number of involved UNC units in the most published authors' collaboration network increased from 7 (2017) to 10 (2021). NC TraCS-supported co-authorship involved 61 NC organizations. PlumX metrics identified articles with the highest altmetrics scores. About 96% NC TraCS-supported publications have above the average SciVal Topic Prominence Percentile; the average approximate potential to translate of the included publication was 54.2%; and 177 publications addressed health disparity issues. Bibliometric measures (e.g., citation counts, RCR) and PlumX metrics (i.e., Citations, Captures, and Social-Media) are positively correlated (p < .05).

Conclusion

Bibliometrics, SNA, and altmetrics offer distinctive but related perspectives to examine CTSA research performance and longitudinal growth, especially at the individual program hub level. These perspectives can help CTSAs build program foci.

Bibliometric and visualized analysis of research relating to minimally invasive spine surgery reported over the period 2000-2022

Background

Since entering the 21st century, there has been an increasing interest in minimally invasive surgery for spinal diseases, which has led to the continued development of minimally invasive spine surgery (MISS), with major breakthroughs in technology and technical skills. However, in recent years, there is little relevant research using bibliometrics to analyze the field of MISS research. The purpose of this study is to sort out the publication situation and topic trends of articles in the field of MISS research from the perspective of bibliometrics.

Methods

The articles and reviews related to MISS from 2000 to 2022 were retrieved and downloaded from the Web of Science Core Collection (WOSCC). Visualization and knowledge mapping were performed using three bibliometric tools, including online bibliometric platform, CiteSpace and VOSviewer software. Curve fitting and correlation analysis were performed using Microsoft Excel software. The global research publication output, contributions of countries, institutions, authors, and journals, average citations per item (ACI), Hirsch index (H-index), research hot keywords, etc., in this field were analyzed.

Results

A total of 2384 papers were retrieved, including 2135 original papers and 249 review papers. In the past 22 years, the number of annual publications of MISS research has shown a steady growth trend. China contributed the most papers, and the United States ranked second, but the United States had the highest total citations, and H-index value. The most prolific institutions were Soochow University, Capital Medical University and Wooridul Spine Hospital. In this field, Professors Lee SH, Ahn Y and Yang HL have made significant achievements. However, there is relatively little international collaboration between institutions or researchers. World Neurosurgery is the most published journal on MISS research. According to the keyword co-occurrence analysis, recent keywords mainly focus on researches on minimally invasive modalities, techniques and prognosis, while on the keyword analysis of the ongoing bursts, percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy, lumbar diskectomy, spinal stenosis, recompression, diskectomy, endoscopic spine surgery, laminectomy, transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, etc., will likely continue to be a research hotspot in the near future.

Conclusion

Looking at the temporal trend in the number of publications per year, the number of publications for the MISS study will increase in the near future. China has the highest number of publications, but the US has the highest quality publications. International cooperation needs to be further strengthened. Our findings can provide useful information for the academic community and identify possible research fronts and hotspots in the coming years.

Association of Non-traditional Indicators of Readers' Engagement With Traditional Dissemination Metrics of COVID-19-Related Research

INTRODUCTION

 Researchers are increasingly interested in appraising the impact of their research work, which eventually drives public perception. The overall impact of a study can only be gauged if we consider both traditional and non-traditional dissemination patterns. Hence, we preferred to study the association between the non-traditional reader engagement metrics and traditional dissemination metrics in relation to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related research published in five high-impact peer-reviewed medical journals.

METHOD

 This observational study was conducted using data sourced from Altmetric, including the Altmetric attention score (AAS), an aggregate score of an article's dissemination. New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), Lancet Infectious Diseases, Clinical Infectious Diseases (CID), Chest Journal (CHEST), and Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) were included in the study based on the prevalence of COVID-19-related original research published in each of them. The number of citations was framed as the reference for traditional metrics. To avoid artificial variance, data were collected on the same day, November 13, 2022. Correlational analyses were performed using the Pearson correlation coefficient using Minitab 17 (Minitab Inc., State College, PA). The relationship between the variables was considered very weak if r<0.3, weak if r: 0.3 to 0.5, moderate if r: 0.5 to 0.7, and strong for r>0.7.

RESULTS

 We found a very weak correlation between citations and AAS for Clinical Infectious Diseases, Lancet Infectious Diseases, and CHEST, whereas the correlation was moderate for NEJM and JAMA. The correlation between citations and Twitter mentions was very weak for Clinical Infectious Disease, Lancet Infectious Disease, and CHEST, but it improved for NEJM and JAMA. There was a very weak correlation between citations and news mentions for Clinical Infectious Diseases, Lancet Infectious Diseases, and CHEST.

CONCLUSION

 Our study highlights that the traditional indicator, i.e., citation has a very weak to moderate correlation with the AAS and it doesn't capture the entire influence of a research publication. Also, the current method of determining a journal's impact factor doesn't take this disparity into consideration. Hence, there needs to have a more inclusive strategy to define the impact of scientific research on the general population in real-time.

Open Access Articles Garner Increased Social Media Attention and Citation Rates Compared With Subscription Access Research Articles: An Altmetrics-Based Analysis

BACKGROUND

To better understand the research impact on social media, alternative web-based metrics (Altmetrics) were developed. Open access (OA) publishing, which allows for widespread distribution of scientific content, has become increasingly common in the medical literature. However, the relationship between OA publishing and social media impact remains unclear.

PURPOSE

To compare social media attention and citation rates between OA and subscription access (SA) research articles within the orthopaedic and sports medicine literature.

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

METHODS

Articles published as either OA or SA in 5 high-impact hybrid orthopaedic journals between January 2019 and December 2019 were analyzed. The primary outcome was the Altmetric Attention Score (AAS), a validated measure of social media attention. Secondary outcomes included citation rates, article characteristics, and the number of shares on social media. Independent t tests and chi-square analyses were used to compare outcomes between OA and SA articles. A multivariable linear regression analysis was performed to determine the association between article type and AAS while controlling for bibliometric characteristics.

RESULTS

A total of 2143 articles (246 OA articles, 11.5%; 1897 SA articles, 88.5%) were included. The mean AAS among all OA articles was 62.4 ± 184.6 (range, 0-2032), whereas the mean AAS among all SA articles was 18.4 ± 109.8 (range, 0-3425), representing a statistically significant difference (P < .001). The mean citation rate among OA articles was significantly higher (17.0 ± 22.5; range, 0-139) than that of SA articles (8.6 ± 13.4; range, 0-169) (P < .001). Multivariable linear regression analysis demonstrated that OA status (β = 15.15; P = .044), number of institutions (β = 2.13; P = .023), studies classified as epidemiological investigations (β = 107.40; P < .001), and disclosure of a conflict of interest (β = -11.18; P = .032) were significantly associated with a higher AAS.

CONCLUSION

OA articles resulted in significantly greater AAS and citations in comparison with SA articles. Articles published through the OA option in hybrid journals as well as those with a higher number of institutions, those that disclosed a conflict of interest, and those classified as epidemiological investigations were positively associated with greater AAS in addition to a greater number of citations. The potential for more extensive research dissemination inherent in the OA option may therefore translate into greater reach and social media attention.

Altmetric score, reads, and citations in paediatric cardiology: do they correlate and what do they mean?

INTRODUCTION

The primary objective of this study was to determine whether Altmetric score, number of reads, and citations for paediatric cardiology manuscripts correlate with one another. A secondary objective was to determine the extent to which factors mediated citation number for paediatric cardiology manuscripts.

METHODS

Data for this study came from manuscripts published in Cardiology in the Young (2010-2021). Data were extracted by using data shared on the journal website. Spearman's correlation analyses were conducted between manuscript reads, citations, and Altmetric score. Regression analyses were conducted with number of citations as the dependent variable and year of publication, publication type, number of reads, and Altmetric score as independent variables.

RESULTS

A total of 2642 manuscripts were included in the final analyses. Reads and citations had poor correlation (r-value 0.32); reads and Altmetric score had negligible correlation (r-value 0.26); and Altmetric score and citations had negligible correlation (r-value 0.07). Year of publication was independently associated with number of citations (β -0.95, p-value <0.01). Manuscript type was independently associated with number of citations (β 1.04, p-value <0.01). Number of reads was independently associated with citations (β 0.01, p-value <0.01). Altmetric score was independently associated with number of citations (β 0.05, p-value <0.01).

CONCLUSION

This study describes the correlation of reads, citations, and Altmetric score in manuscripts published in Cardiology in the Young, demonstrating poor correlation, at best, between these metrics. Each bibliometric index seems to represent a different phenomenon of manuscript consumption. No single bibliometric index in isolation offers ample representation of manuscript consumption.

Technique Articles Are More Effective at Increasing Social Media Attention in Comparison With Original Research Articles: An Altmetrics-Based Analysis

Purpose

To compare social media attention and citation rates between technique articles and matched original research articles (ORAs) regarding surgical procedures.

Methods

All technique articles published from August 2019 through July 2020 in the free, electronic versions of Arthroscopy Techniques and JBJS Essential Surgical Techniques were matched by topic to articles in the “Original Research” sections of Arthroscopy, Sports Medicine, and Rehabilitation and JBJS Open Access in a 4:1 ratio within this time frame. The primary outcome was the Altmetric Attention Score (AAS). Secondary outcomes included citations, bibliometrics, and social media metrics. Independent t tests were used to compare primary and secondary outcomes between technique articles and ORAs. A multivariate linear regression analysis was performed to determine the association between article type and social media attention while controlling for confounding bibliometric characteristics.

Results

A total of 285 matched research articles (n = 57, 20.0%) and technique articles (n = 228, 80.0%) were included. The mean AAS among all technique articles was 3.63 ± 10.08 (range, 0-96) whereas the mean AAS among all ORAs was 1.30 ± 3.98 (range, 0-25), representing a statistically significant difference (P = .016). The mean citation rate among all technique articles was not significantly different from that among ORAs (P = .73). Multivariate linear regression analysis showed a statistically significant positive association between AAS and article type, with an additional mean increase in the AAS of 2.91 (95% confidence interval, 0.04-5.77; P = .047) for every technique article compared with an ORA. Furthermore, a significant positive relation was noted between the article origin and the AAS, with an increase in the AAS of 3.00 (95% confidence interval, 0.82-5.17; P = .007) for every article published in North America compared with an article originating from another continent.

Conclusions

Technique articles resulted in significantly greater AASs and social media attention in comparison with open-access ORAs on similar topics. Publications that described technical procedures in a technique journal and studies from North America were positively associated with greater AASs and greater numbers of citations received by articles.

Clinical Relevance

An improved understanding of how much attention is given to technique articles versus matched ORAs by social media may influence the methods authors and journals use for distributing content. The present study suggests that one option to increase the amount of social media attention received for a particular study may be to utilize an accompanying surgical technique video or illustrations as these are easily shareable on social media and offer rapid dissemination of knowledge, similar to that of an infographic. However, physicians who view multimedia within technique articles should be encouraged to review the accompanying articles and the supporting original research as a primary source before making changes in their clinical practice.

Altmetric and bibliometric analysis of obstetrics and gynecology research: influence of public engagement on citation potential

BACKGROUND

Whether research engagement on social media and other public platforms results in increased citations in obstetrics and gynecology remains uncertain. The Altmetric Attention Score is a metric of research influence based on mentions on social media and public platforms, such as newsfeeds and Wikipedia. The correlation between Altmetric Attention Scores, absolute citation rates, and the Relative Citation Ratio (a novel metric of research engagement also based on citation rates) in obstetrics and gynecology research is uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the correlation between Altmetric Attention Score, absolute citation rate, and Relative Citation Ratio for articles published in obstetrics and gynecology journals from 2004 to 2019. Our second objective was to identify, characterize, and compare the 100 articles with highest Altmetric Attention Scores, the 100 most-cited articles, and the 100 articles with highest Relative Citation Ratios.

STUDY DESIGN

We performed a cross-sectional altmetric and bibliometric study of all obstetrics and gynecology articles indexed in the National Institutes of Health Open Citation Collection from 2004 to 2019. Articles were included if they were published in obstetrics and gynecology journals according to InCites Journal Citation Reports indexing. Citation data, including citation numbers and Relative Citation Ratios, were downloaded on March 20, 2021 and merged with altmetric data from the Altmetric Explorer on the basis of each article's unique PubMed identification number. We assessed correlation between Altmetric Attention Scores and number of citations and Altmetric Attention Scores and Relative Citation Ratios by calculating the Pearson correlation coefficient. The 100 articles with highest Altmetric Attention Scores, the 100 most-cited articles, and the 100 articles with highest Relative Citation Ratios were characterized and compared using means (standard deviations) and mean differences (95% confidence intervals).

RESULTS

There were 156,592 articles published in 82 obstetrics and gynecology journals and indexed in the National Institutes of Health Open Citation Collection between 2004 and 2019. The correlation coefficient was 0.18 (95% confidence interval, 0.17-0.19) for Altmetric Attention Scores vs number of citations and 0.10 (95% confidence interval, 0.09-0.11) for Altmetric Attention Scores vs Relative Citation Ratios. There was no overlap among the 100 articles on the highest Altmetric Attention Score list and the 100 most-cited list, and there was minimal overlap among the 100 articles on the highest Altmetric Attention Score list and the 100 highest Relative Citation Ratio list (98 unique articles on each list). Articles with highest Altmetric Attention Scores generated substantially more engagement on social media and other public platforms than most-cited articles (mean Altmetric Attention Score, 763.1 [standard deviation, 520.8] vs 49.9 [standard deviation, 81.6]; mean difference, -713.2 [95% confidence interval, -819.9 to -606.6]) and highest Relative Citation Ratio articles (mean, 116.2 [standard deviation, 415.9]; mean difference, -661.5 [95% confidence interval, -746.2 to -576.9]). In contrast, the articles with highest Altmetric Attention Scores generated far fewer citations than most-cited articles (mean, 39.7 [standard deviation, 47.6] vs 541.8 [standard deviation, 312.8]; mean difference, 502.0 [95% confidence interval, 439.0-565.0]) and highest Relative Citation Ratio articles (mean, 458.9 [standard deviation, 363.5]; mean difference, 427.7 [95% confidence interval, 353.8-501.6]). Nearly half of articles with highest Altmetric Attention Scores were basic/translational studies, often about menopause and environmental factors impacting fertility, whereas most-cited articles and articles with highest Relative Citation Ratios were more likely to be reviews and consensus statements, respectively, often about placentation and polycystic ovary syndrome, respectively. Articles with highest Altmetric Attention Scores were more likely to be published as open-access.

CONCLUSION

There seems to be weak short-term correlation between Altmetric Attention Scores and citation rates. Further study is warranted to ascertain whether there may be long-term correlation between alternative metrics and citation rates in obstetrics and gynecology.

Mapping Knowledge Structure and Themes Trends of Osteoporosis in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Bibliometric Analysis

Background: Rheumatoid arthritis is a chronic disabling disease characterized by chronic inflammation, articular cartilage destruction, and reduced bone mass. Multiple studies have revealed that the development of osteoporosis in rheumatoid arthritis (RA; ORA) patients could be led to a reduced quality of life and increased healthcare costs. Nevertheless, no attempt has been made to analyze the field of ORA research with the bibliometric method. This study aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of the knowledge structure and theme trends in the field of ORA research from a bibliometric perspective.

Methods: Articles and reviews regarding ORA from 1998 to 2021 were identified from the Web of Science database. An online bibliometric platform, CiteSpace, and VOSviewer software were used to generate visualization knowledge maps including co-authorship, co-citation, and co-occurrence analysis. SPSS, R, and Microsoft Excel software were used to conduct curve fitting and correlation analysis, and to analyze quantitative indicators, such as publication and citation counts, h-index, and journal citation reports.

Results: A total of 1,081 papers with 28,473 citations were identified. Publications were mainly concentrated in North America, Western Europe, and Eastern Asia. Economic strength is an important factor affecting scientific output. The United States contributed the most publications (213) with the highest h-index value (46) as of September 14, 2021. Diakonhjemmet Hospital and professor Haugeberg G were the most prolific institution and influential authors, respectively. Journal of Rheumatology was the most productive journal concerning ORA research. According to the burst references, “anti-citrullinated protein antibodies” and “preventing joint destruction” have been recognized as the hot research issues in the domain. The keywords co-occurrence analysis identified “teriparatide,” “interleukin-6,” “Wnt,” and “vertebral fractures” as the important future research directions.

Conclusion: This was the first bibliometric study comprehensively summarizing the trends and development of ORA research. Our findings could offer practical sources for scholars to understand the key information in this field, and identify the potential research frontiers and hot directions in the near future.

Is Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing Coming out on Top? A Comparison with Activity-Based Costing in the Health Field

The cost of health is a recurrent topic that has generated much research, as it affects all of society. Both public and private agents need to know the real cost of treatments, services, and products for decision-making. This article aims to compare the use and research impact of two cost systems widely used in health: ABC and TDABC, which is an evolution of ABC. For doing so, a bibliometric review in Scopus and Medline was carried out encompassing the years 2009-2019. The results show a great increase in publications using TDABC, while publications on ABC stabilized. On the other hand, the TDABC articles presented higher research impacts in traditional and alternative metrics. Articles on TDABC are more frequently cited, published in better journals, and more visible in academic social networks. The findings suggest that scholars and practitioners should focus on TDABC rather than ABC for addressing cost in health for its simplicity, projection, and research opportunities.

Infographics Are More Effective at Increasing Social Media Attention in Comparison With Original Research Articles: An Altmetrics-Based Analysis

PURPOSE

To compare social media attention and citation rates between infographics (visual abstracts) and original research articles.

METHODS

All infographics in 2019 from electronic versions of Arthroscopy were matched by topic to articles in the "Original Research" section of the journal in a 4:1 ratio within the same year. The primary outcome was the Altmetric Attention Score (AAS), a cumulative measure of social media attention from various platforms such as Twitter and Facebook. Secondary outcomes included citation rates, article characteristics, and number of shares on social media platforms. Independent t tests and χ² analyses were used to compare primary and secondary outcomes between infographics and control articles. Multivariate linear regression analysis was performed to determine the association between article type and social media attention while controlling for bibliometric characteristics.

RESULTS

A total of 60 matched research articles (n = 48, 80.0%) and infographics (n = 12, 20.0%) published in 2019 in Arthroscopy were included. The mean AAS among all infographics was 29.75 ± 32.84 (range, 3-118), whereas the mean AAS among all control research articles was 5.75 ± 8.90 (range, 0-41), representing a statistically significant difference (P < .001). Infographics had significantly more Twitter mentions (100% vs 70.8%, P < .001) and Facebook mentions (75% vs. 6.2%, P < .001) compared with original articles. Multivariate linear regression analysis demonstrated a statistically significant and positive association between AAS and article type, with an additional mean increase in the AAS of 33.7 (95% confidence interval 11.6-50.6; P = .003) for every infographic article compared with an original research article. The mean citation rate among all infographics was 2.4 ± 2.4 (range, 0-7), whereas the mean citation rate among all control research articles was 2.2 ± 4.0 (range, 0-27), which was not a significant difference (P = .69).

CONCLUSIONS

Infographics resulted in significantly greater AAS and social media attention in comparison with original research articles of similar topics. We recommend the routine creation of infographics by journals to increase the social media attention that their research and chosen topics of interest receive. However, viewers of infographics should read them out of interest but turn their attention toward the original article or a source of more detailed information before making changes in clinical decision-making or practice, as they can be oversimplified.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Infographics are an increasingly used by journals as a form of depicting research findings from select studies. By producing infographics, journals may increase the amount of social media attention received for a particular study or topic of interest.

Trends in Views of Articles Published in 3 Leading Medical Journals During the COVID-19 Pandemic

This cross-sectional study assesses changes in views of medical scientific articles published in 3 leading medical journals since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.